Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 11, 2013 4:30am-5:01am PST

4:30 am
following a sound consultant and will be implementing a 6-inch separation. current plywood and wall will be replaced with an eight inch 8-inch wall and current commercial space in the restaurant is going to be replaced with hallways and dead space that is going to insulate the marsh from further annoys impact. following in the dr there will be noise that will affect the project. that will be removed. that will eliminate concerns as well. effort have been under taken to respond to noise concerns. >> a couple questions, what do you response to the proposed mitigation measures that the marsh has presented? do you
4:31 am
agree with them? >> we have not received a copy of those measures. >> okay. when was the last time you had a meeting with the folks in the marsh community? >> good evening, project sponsor. we met with the marsh directly after the dr meeting. we proceed actively went over and investigated some issues that they had on the property, some roof drainage issues and we also retained their sound consultant to come up with a report that should be floating around here with the planning department somewhere. we didn't find any issues with the sound. the building formally was a nightclub. back in 86 and 87 he received some complaints and on
4:32 am
two occasions he pulled permits to do the soundproofing. all the complaints we heard tonight about the fees ability of the marsh is groundless because there is no reason they can do that now. there is open space in the back. there is large service area for the restaurant where the recycling goes on at night. that does not interfere with the performance now. the conditions are going to be even better as my counsel mentioned we are replaced the 2 x 4 wall in the former kfc building with an 8-inch thick concrete with a wall. it's like a bun ker. in. the feeling that there is going
4:33 am
to be noise is completely unfounded. the noise that is going to happen, their schedule does not show any daytime performances at all except on the weekends. we agreed to these limited hours because we were under the impression that they were happy with that. it's come back to bite us now. >> when was the dr. hearing? >> september of 2012. >> have you m it with them since then? >> we've been in phone conversations over some roof issues, but we haven't met with them since. it's not for lack of trying. >> it's been a year and 3 months. thank you. >> any other questions, colleagues to the project sponsor. okay, why don't we hear from members of the public who wish to speak in support of the project sponsor. first
4:34 am
speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, tim on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. i would like to express my intense frustration to having to speak at a hearing for this. years after the project has come to us and here we are again both sides lawyered up and to why ceqa is such a broken process and two why san francisco has such a difficult time in addressing the housing challenges it so plainly faces. this took ten years to adopt. we were involved in many of those. the eastern set out the rules to what the city would say how we would address the future. what rules the developer had to play by. the
4:35 am
project we saw has 15 units. it has no parking. 1-1 bike parking and they do their on-site inclusionary there. apparently no good deed goes unpunished in this town. there is going to be a lot more zoning tool which is for dense cities. the traffic is bad and we know mament mta has trouble and we have to get in particular more projects like this. the message i would like to leave is lending institutions has projects? san francisco. we have many examples of successful car free projects to give institutions the confidence to lend to these projects. this is a great example of what we've told the developed we say you should do
4:36 am
this type of project. they are doing it in years later here we are. i would ask to you turn down appeal. thank you. >> thank you, neck speaker? good evening, board. thank you for having us and for staying so late with us. my name is nicole shrader and i'm here on behalf of walk san francisco to support zero parking project, zero parking projects directly support live ability, health and environmental and economic goals of our city. pointing to a fact sheet by mtc regarding senate bill 743 analysis under ceqa new changes to ceqa allow changes to parking in
4:37 am
aesthetics to parking areas that are transit rich high quality transit which is.4 miles from bart. it explicitly eliminates a residential missed use redental or employment center project. so this qualifies under that new ceqa threshold. 0 parking projects makes sense for san francisco. about half of the households in the mission are non-car owners lrs lr. there are only 12 units. we are talking about only 12 people, 12 households. if i lived here i would go in there knowing that people are
4:38 am
going to self select. there are plenty of options for walking and cycling and transit in this area. it's a wonderful place for this sort of promise. zero parking is a way of the future and necessary steps if we want to achieve our city's shared climate action goals. >> good evening, supervisors, my name is carlos schwartz on behalf of the bicycle coalition. valencia is the most used bicycle routes in the city, a 95 percent increase in the number of bikers in the last 5 years and we know this number is growing. these are people who live and work in the neighborhood and visit and support it and this is one of the best areas for biking and walking in the city. the corridor is diverse in dynamic residential and commercial uses that is well served by transit
4:39 am
and bike lanes and flat lanes. this is an important precedent for the city for car free development and city. we mod that it provides ample secure bike parking for the growing demand in the neighborhood. so my question to you all at the board is if we can't build 12 units of car free living development in this walkable transit rich bicycle community. >> thank you, any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor, seeing none, at this time let's hear back from the pell apts -- appellants who have up to three minutes to respond. >> steve williams again, thank
4:40 am
you so much for your petition. this -- patience. with ceqa you have been giving so much misinformation. let's start with the height. the height of the building is 70 feet. it's 55 feet to the roof. right on the architect drawings, there is another top 5 feet to the top and 10 feet on mechanicals on top of that. how can you analyze under ceqa if you don't measure that. ceqa relies on analysis. this the building is 70 feet tall. the nmd analyze
4:41 am
notice with respect to the marsh. as a result not. the nmd does not recommended the marsh it's not mentioned in there and it's not noted as the neighbor. there is zero mention, completely and totally emitted from consideration. the people that have lined up here today have given you substantial evidence that are not mentioned in anyway shape or form in the environmental document. the planning told you they did the analysis. that's completely incorrect. i don't know where that comes from. it's not up to the public to provide impact when the analysis has not been
4:42 am
completed. we have provided expert testimony that this document is incomplete. we provided common sense. it's not mentioned. how can it be analyzed if it's mentioned. you can't analyze a situation if you never looked at it. that's all we are getting if this environmental document. so you are being provided completely untrue and misinformation. we urge you, use your common sense. if it's not in there it can't be analyze. they can't just wave a magic wand. that is not an equivalent . we urge you
4:43 am
to look the at the -- entire document. >> colleagues, anymore questions. supervisor wiener? >> i have a point of clarification because mr. williams made reference to 26 valencia. i went online to remind myself when the 26 was eliminated, i think it was in late 2009, i wanted to get confirmation to that. i believe the negative declaration was issued in 2010. since there was discussion about that earlier i wanted to get clarification. >> liz, thanks for pointing that out and giving us an opportunity for something that we discovered the line was eliminated prior to issuing the
4:44 am
pmd and that is why we do not identify one of the lines present in the vicinity. >> colleagues, any final comments or questions. or should i close the hearing. >> one question around the noise in the marsh and the contention that this wasn't a mention of the marsh of the analysis and i wonder what your response is? >> i believe the correct statement what was part of the response which is that md does not specifically analyze the marsh theatre but the characterization. we do regret if there was a misstatement
4:45 am
that suggested that the analysis is specifically done perhaps due to the nervousness. we did do the noise analysis and it does apply to the marsh theatre. >> i upside, does m & d mention the marsh. >> perhaps, what my colleague said she was mischaracterized. we did conduct a noise analysis and identified what the construction phase impacts of the project would be and would be applicable to the marsh theatre as well. >> does document mention the marsh theatre? >> we are flipping now the. but
4:46 am
in the noise analysis we did not do so. it identifies sensitive receptors residential uses. we did not identify a theatre as a sensitive receptor and therefore we didn't focus our analysis on that. >> from a common sense approach, i'm just wondering if the documents doesn't mention the theatre, how can it consider the noise impact on the theatre if it's not even mentioned in it. >> the analysis that we conducted pursuant to ceqa is to evaluate the project and we look at the noise standards to when the project was complied, st san francisco noise
4:47 am
identifies the receptors. the theatre is not identified as a receptor for noise ordinance. the impact is characterized how to types of impact that would occur during construction with regard to during construction impact equipment whether it's the marsh theatre or another use, it's the same physical transmission of noise that would occur. i'm hearing today that the suggestion that the mash theatre is worthy of more detailed analysis in the m and d that it received. we believe that we've conducted the ceqa review that was required of noise impact and was not required that there be the level of noise analysis specifically of impact of
4:48 am
construction on the march theatre that is clearly being asked for it today and we think that renders m and d inadequate and certainly renders information that others would have liked to have seen. i understand the point but saying you measured it when you didn't mention it, it doesn't sit well with me. >> if i can clarify with, this identifies entertainment uses in the area. as indicate they are not noise sensitive under our noise ordinance. >> colleagues, any final questions. okay. at this time unless there are any final questions. this hearing is held and closed. these matters are in the hand of the board. supervisor wiener?
4:49 am
>> thank you. mr. president. >> i would like to thank all the members of the community who came here today. i think we have an agreement and the marsh is a unique treasure for our city and that we have to be very serious when it comes to
4:50 am
preserving all sorts of arts and nightlife and theatre uses in the city. i know that i and others on this board have worked very hard to try to foster an atmosphere in the city where various kinds of arts and nighttime uses are valid because sometimes they haven't be very valid in the city. so it's in incredibly important and we agree on that. i think we've also seen today that as is always the case in san francisco that we are deeply passionate about our naebts -- neighborhoods for those who have lived in our neighborhood for a long time and for those who have arrived more recently, we love these neighborhoods and work hard to improve them and to make sure
4:51 am
they remain the special places that they are. this neighborhood is no different. it is a mission liberty hill. this is an absolutely wonderful area. and it's not surprising to me that there are so many people who are passionate about the neighborhood. with all that said. this appeal before us today is a ceqa appeal. the not a discretionary review. when you have discretionary review of like thg part of the project and not and making changes. in fact if this were conditional use it would give us the same flexibility. ceqa is much of the different thing and this
4:52 am
board in particular which hasn't always been in way. one thing this board has done is to apply ceqa and apply it under our obligation to apply ceqa as adjudicate oris of these appeals. sometime we have our open opinion about what i like about this or don't like that or i wish that were different and if it's not a ceqa issue and for the appeal. when you look at this project first of all it's in the zoning. you can like the eastern neighborhood and not, like it or not, even neighborhood is a law of the city. it was passed by the previous board of supervisors and signed by the mayor. it is the law. this project is within
4:53 am
that zoning. there is no parking minimum for this project under eastern neighborhoods. again i know there is a lot of issues about disputes and different opinions about the maximum and there was a discussion about not to have parking in these areas. when we look at ceqa rgs i do believe, that this negative declaration was supported by substantial evidence meets the legal standards and i believe it should be affirmed. the issues that have been raised i think were adequately addressed within the negative declaration. the preservation issues both
4:54 am
by the planning department and the historic commission and have been adequately addressed as well. i will be making a motion to affirm the negative declaration to move item 26 and table items 27 and 28. now with that i do want to make a couple of comments and i want to ask the project sponsor or his attorney to come up because i do believe that i do want to see if the project sponsor would consider again this is separate from ceqa, i don't think there is a ceqa issue here, but i know there is a pending appeals and the board of a n appeals can alter
4:55 am
condition and take marsh into full consideration. i know the planning commission as part of discretionary review limited the construction hours from the normal 7 to 8:00 p.m. and i'm wondering if the project sponsor would consider asking the board of appeals to cut down to 730 :30 p.m. and the mark is concerned about the residents who move. when people move into areas where there is an existing nighttime use and go to war with the nighttime
4:56 am
use when it was there. so there are, as a suggestion that the existence of the marsh and the fact that it is nighttime use, the fact that it will emit noise and it can be loud and applause and people will be coming and going at night and that will be disclosed to residents and they indicate they have received that notification with a signature so and this is one of the things that the marsh has requested wondering if the project sponsor would consider that. we can put those two out there. >> i think both of those are reasonable request and certainly things we will consider. as you just mentioned this body is not at a little bit at this moment to condition the project in this way.
4:57 am
certainly those are valid concerns and if the board imposes that, we would agree with that. reducing the construction hours is going to reduce the construction. if there is no performance why wouldn't we get another hour or two of construction. moving on to your issue about self disclosure, that's not a problem at all. we would agree to mitigation measure. >> there is also a construction relations officer and if we are going to be on staff as who is going to be available with the liaison.
4:58 am
>> mike. we will appoint anybody. meanwhile they have my cellphone. they can call me at any time. we will a point a liaison. >> okay. i don't think any of these issues are ceqa issues. but i just wanted to put those out there. i know you have a board of appeals hearing that is being held if the environmental document is affirmative tonight and the board of appeals can make an amendment. i wanted to put that out there. back so ceqa, my motion is to affirm the met
4:59 am
gated nag deck. >> all right. any more discussion? >> thank you, mr. president, i want to thank all sides of this issue and there is department for their presentations and supervisor wiener for his comments, i have a different perspective here and the thing about ceqa or any issue depends on how you define it. sometimes this board chooses to have a very narrow definition of ceqa and a very broader definition of ceqa. i do think that based on a ceqa analysis this appeal has merit. if we are talking about the merits of the project and non-ceqa issues, i would be talking about the larger issue of whether or not there is a need for more luxury housing in
5:00 am
the mission. i think that's a legitimate question and one that i think should be dealt with and addressed in light of that is displacement that is happening throughout the city but especially in neighborhoods like the neighborhood when it comes to artist who are an endangered species. but that is not the focus of this appeal. it is ceqa and i'm concerned about the analysis that's been provided and i have a lot of respect for planning. but i don't think that there has been sufficient consideration of the changes in this neighborhood. i don't believe that there has been adequate consideration of the impact environmentally that this project will have on the marsh and it's not just saying that you did the analysis when the very institution that you are talking about